Another tiktok review of the same video (from a physician) for the younger generation and those with less attention span.
She has a dog on the sofa so probably we can't trust neither her nor the tiktok canadian physician now can we, but he wears a superhero cap maybe this makes him credible?
How many debunking videos does it take that people will accept campbell is a fraud? a million, 5 million, 35 million?
(3 votes)
Comments
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
She skips some part over. They use different troponin levels for men and women. For women the mean is alot lower than for men.
When using the uniform ULN of 14 ng/L (that she says they should use) they still get 1.8% myocardial injury which is stated in the study.
She down plays when Campbell is suggesting that you should be warned about exercise if you have high hs-cTnT levels but that exactly what they did according to the study:
Tell me, If I say this direct quote from the paper, am I misrepresenting the study? Because thats is what I keep hearing.
It's another thing if the paper is wrong, but that isn't the fault of the person quoting it but the paper authors and the ones who peer-reviewed it.
(Long Spike)
would a math teacher use your kids math homework to teach the class? if they were to, do they share any of the responsibility of it?
(Old Spike)
john is quoting the researchers not the other way around - so your kid using a math textbook to teach other kids would be the accurate analogy.
(Old Spike)
To correct your statement:
"john misrepresented the researchers findings"
(Long Spike)
its 2.8 because the study didnt follow the 14ng/L standard which is listed in 99th-perentileULN and makes no mention of sexes. only when they adjust the study to fit the standards, that 2.8 turns into a 1.8. without that 2.8, you don't get one out if 35 but here's john
and when i asked you to quantify the chance
john made a choice to run with 2.8 because its higher than 1.8 and you made the choice to run with 2.8 because you didnt't read the study and the whole reason behind this motivation is grifting for john and an attempt at justification for you. decisions where made to represent this paper the way it was
i want to explain something to you. you might try to make this as though you're trying to figure something out, your trying to get somewhere, but thats bullshit. you're already there and you're trying to reason how you got there cause a month or so after the vaccines initially came out, you stated "I won't be taking it myself". you decided 14 years ago you would be taking vaccine and for the last 2 years you've been trying to find a reason other than your cousin taking naps
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"john made a choice to run with 2.8 because its higher than 1.8 and you made the choice to run with 2.8 because you didnt't read the study and the whole reason behind this motivation is grifting for john and an attempt at justification for you."
I've posted a direct quote in the above post. Here it is again:
Heres some more context. Again a direct quote from the paper:
Below I've even said that it's quite possible that Campbell fucked up by using "myocardial injury" and "myocarditis" interchangeably.
"i want to explain something to you. you might try to make this as though you're trying to figure something out, your trying to get somewhere, but thats bullshit. you're already there and you're trying to reason how you got there cause a month or so after the vaccines initially came out, you stated "I won't be taking it myself". you decided 14 years ago you would be taking vaccine and for the last 2 years you've been trying to find a reason other than your cousin taking naps"
Thanks for the psych analysis.
I didn't take the vaccine because it was a new kind of vaccine and it was rushed. Of course, theres going to be unknown factors that only come out later. Also, big pharma greed doesn't inspire confidence. I thought I would be fit enough to handle the covid if I caught it, and I was right. My 70+ parents were fit enough to handle it so yeah...
My cousin doesn't take naps (well I'm sure she does, but not because of the swine flu vaccine), she sits in a wheelchair with some kind of neurological disorder. Basically she was forced on an early retirement before hitting 30.
This wasn't really in my mind when deciding not to take the vaccine because they are totally different, but yeah there are similar kinds of neurological disorders reported from the covid vaccine too. Theres some interviews with the cases on Campbells channel.
(Old Spike)
well argued.
(Long Spike)
what you should be thinking about is if john's fucking up by accident or on purpose, remember that it's dr john campbell and his audience, who happen to be the anti-vax community, the same community that donates to him. are only his audience because of the things he says
at some point, your actions make you more than just an observer. as much as you want to say john's just rowing a boat, eventually you're in the boat with him, manning an oar
keeping john and the study separate
these are quotes from the study, with minor edits so you can follow it easier
When using 8.9 ng/L in women and 15.5 ng/L in men. mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated in 22 participants (2.8%) twenty cases occurred in women, two in men
the math
777/22=35(1 in 35)
22/777=0.028(2.8%)
When using a uniform ULN of 14 ng/L, mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was adjudicated in 14 patients (1.8%), 9 cases occurring in women and 5 in men
the math
777/14=55(1 in 55)
14/777=0.018(1.8%)
by applying the standards to their data, the number drops by a third. the results of 2.8% or 1 out of 35 are based on arbitrary numbers and the whole study is based on those chosen numbers. they could have gone with a higher ng/L which would have had only 1 person. if they did that. the results of it would have been comparing 0.0012 t levels associating myocardial injury(apples) to 0.0035 myocarditis hospitalization cases(oranges) and in turn, less of a risk then previously thought. the results of those chosen numbers is moot because they didn't take any levels before hand. if the idea is to find out if something is causing something, it would be pretty handy to know if they have it already. the limitations this study has is because the data it's based off, wasn't looking for anything specific and because of that, it can't be used to make any correlation between anything
these studies, along with the ones based on google reviews. these are studies that get you the results you want. these are the only studies that will get you the results you want because the only way you're going to get the results you want is to have them be based on incomplete data/dubious methods/spurious correlations/comparisons
your cousin could have been hit lightning. you could refuse to go outside for that reason. that's understandable but everything else your saying is bullshit. you're succumbing to your need to justify it by waiving around studies saying people who wear red shirts get hit by lightning more often. everything other than the cousins experience is getting compared against the millions of people that died because they didn't get the vaccine(either because it wasn't created yet or they made a choice not to). like your cousin, you got no legs to stand on but she's saving money on shoes
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"what you should be thinking about is if john's fucking up by accident or on purpose"
I am. If his skeptics have failed to point this out, then there's a good chance that it's an honest mistake.
"the results of 2.8% or 1 out of 35 are based on arbitrary numbers and the whole study is based on those chosen numbers."
I've posted it here many time what they used to compare it to. They aren't made up.
booster vaccination were assessed for mRNA-1273vaccination-associated myocardial injury, defined as acute dynamic increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T(hs-cTnT) concentration above the sex-specific upper limit of normal on day 3 (48–96 h) after vaccination without evidence of an alternative cause
I'm not an expert on this field and can't really argue if this is a good cut-off point or not. I can really only argue if Campbell is making up shit or not. If he is quoting the paper, he's not making shit up.
"the results of those chosen numbers is moot because they didn't take any levels before hand."
I agree that that would have been the proper way to do it.
In the paper, they explain why they did it and how they controlled for that limitation.
First, to interfere as little as possible with the motivation of the hospital staff to obtain the mRNA-1273booster vaccination and its logistics, we restricted the study to blood draws after vaccination. Thus, baseline hs-cTnT values were not available. The lack of a baseline hs-cTnT concentration was therefore addressed threefold:
(i) by requiring a relevant change in hs-cTnT concentration from day 3 to the follow-up visit as additional criteria to adjudicate mRNA vaccine-associated myocardial injury;
(ii) by conservative adjudication in that 18 participants with mild hs-cTnT-elevations on day 3 (17women,one man), and either no available hs-cTnT concentration at follow-up visit or one with no relevant change, were considered to reflect pre-existing known or assumed cardiac disease rather than mRNA-1273 booster vaccine-associated myocardial injury (although the differential diagnosis in these18 patients includes persistent vaccine-associated myocardial injury); Thereby, among the 40 participants (5.1%) detected to have increased hs-cTnTconcentration on day 3 after mRNA-1273 booster vaccination,only 22 participants (2.8%) were adjudicated to have mRNA-1273vaccine-associated myocardial injury. For comparison, using these specific 99th percentile as the ULN, among presumably healthy individuals only1% of persons are expected to have increased levels;
(iii) by adding an age-, sex-, and history of coronary artery disease/AMI-matched control group
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I have a hunch, and you're going to love this, because I'm making an argument against Campbell ;)
It could be that Campbell fucked up when he is talking about "myocardial injury" and "myocarditis" interchangeably.
I think this is where the misconception and confusion comes from. You can have myocardial injury but that doesn't necessarily mean you have myocarditis. With myocarditis, you always have myocardial injury and it's possibly more severe.
With a quick search I think this is so, but still seems like the terms are still used interchangeably quite often, but if so, everyone seems to have missed this including Campbells skeptics, or at least the ones I've seen so far.
Off to bed now...
(Old Spike)
"myocardial injury" and "myocarditis" are technically different things but in this context they can be used interchangeably because you can't have one without the other - any injury to the heart will cause inflammation (-itis) which is the body's natural response to injury (the only way you could not have inflammation after injury would be if you were dead), and vice versa if you have myocarditis there must be some injury to have brought that about.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
It's a spectrum, like many things. For an "official myocarditis diagnosis" all the criteria need to be met and what I get from the paper is that they only met the high hs-cTnT levels. There is inflammation and injury to the heart muscle, but not enough to get an actual myocarditis diagnosis. Thats my understanding of it anyway.